FY 2003 Columbia Estuary proposal 30010

Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary

Reviews and Recommendations

Additional documents

Title	Type
30010 Narrative	Narrative
30010 Sponsor Response to ISRP	Response

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal title	Canada-USA Shelf Salmon Survival Study
Proposal ID	30010
Organization	Fisheries & Oceans Canada Pacific Biological Station (DFO)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Name	Dr David W. Welch
Mailing address	Pacific Biological Station Nanaimo, B.C. V9R 5K6
Phone / email	2507567218 / welchd@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Manager authorizing this project	Robin Brown, Head, Ocean Sciences & Productivity
Review cycle	Columbia Estuary
Province / Subbasin	Columbia Estuary / Columbia Estuary
Short description	This project surveys the size, condition, and biological condition of juvenile salmon occupying the British Columbia & SE Alaskan continental shelf regions in the autumn (October). The survey also includes extensive collection of oceanographic data.
Target species	All species of salmon excluding steelhead (trawl does not capture this species)

Project location

Latitude	Longitude	Description
48.6	-125	Southern limit of study area; S.W. Vancouver Island shelf
58.5	-137	Northern limit of study area; N. end of S.E. Alaska
		Project extends between these two points to survey major shelf regions & fjords/inland waterways
46.23	-123.5	Columbia Estuary Province

Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA
Action Item 189
Action Item 190
Action Item 195
Action Item 196
Action Item 197

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agency	Action #	BiOp Agency	Description
NMFS	Action 190	NMFS	The Action Agencies shall continue to fund studies that monitor survival, growth, and other early life history attributes of Snake River wild juvenile fall chinook.
NMFS	Action 195	NMFS	The Action Agencies shall investigate and partition the causes of mortality below Bonneville Dam after juvenile salmonid passage through the FCRPS.
NMFS/BPA	Action 197	NMFS	The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within the annual planning and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding for studies to develop an understanding of juvenile and adult salmon use of the Columbia River plume.
BPA	Action 189	NMFS	The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within the annual planning and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding for studies to investigate the causes of discrepancies in adult return rates for juvenile salmonids that have different passage histories through the hydrosystem.
BPA	Action 195	NMFS	The Action Agencies shall investigate and partition the causes of mortality below Bonneville Dam after juvenile salmonid passage through the FCRPS.
BPA	Action 196	NMFS	The Action Agencies and NMFS shall work within the annual planning and congressional appropriation processes to establish and provide the appropriate level of FCRPS funding for studies to develop an understanding of juvenile and adult salmon use of the Columbia River estuary. These studies support the actions to develop criteria for estuarine restoration (Action 158), restoration planning (Action 159), and implementation (Action 160) in Section 9.6.2.2.

Section 2. Past accomplishments

Year	Accomplishment
1997	Completion of most DFO research on juvenile salmon migration pathways. Demonstration that juveniles remain strictly on the shelf until December at the Aleutians, demonstrating that the migration pathway was much more extensive than originally thought.
1998	Inception of coast-wide (BC-SE Alaska) survey. Identification of substantial differences in salmon growth, energetic content, and expected survival between southern and northern survey areas along the shelf.
1999	Documented major oceanographic changes that occurred along the coast in 1999, which resulted in a drop of 2 degreees C in temperature, back to temperatures not experienced since mid 1970s (pre-"regime shift")..
1999	Documented large scale shift in size and energy content of salmon resident in the southern area of the survey, but little change in the northern area. Projected a large increase in adult returns in 2000 for coho, and 2001 for most other species of salmon
2000	Documented continuing cool ocean conditions and persistence of improved salmon growth in the south. Found first limited evidence for juvenile chinook being preferentially distributed in the inlets of SE Alaska
2001	Documented continued persistence of ocean conditions and effect on salmon. Identified probable habitat division between chinook and coho, with coho being found along open shelf and into mouths of inlets, and chinook deep within the inlets.

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project ID	Title	Description
199801400	Ocean survival and growth of salmonids in the Columbia River plume (NMFS)	Collaborative investigation, with exchange of collected samples and scientific findings

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor
1. Organise Autumn research cruise of DFO vessel "W.E. Ricker"	a. Ship completes coast-wide survey from west coast Vancouver Island to northern SE Alaska.	ongoing	$180,000
	b. Shipboard operation of CTD	ongoing	$2,400
	c. CTD data processing (post cruise)	ongoing	$500	Yes
	d. Seawater nutrient analysis (NO3, SiO4)	ongoing	$1,000	Yes
	e. Laboratory analysis and preparation of collected salmon and data entry of information after return of ship	ongoing	$60,800	Yes
2. Analyse results from cruise, collate with results from other DFO-funded surveys, and relate results to Columbia River salmon issues identified in the 2000 BiOP.	a. Data analysis (including DNA) and report write-up.	ongoing	$153,800
	b. Develop Cs133 & Hg measurements	ongoing	$16,000
	c. Otolith thermal mark ID analysis	ongoing	$2,800
	d. Salmon gut analysis	ongoing	$1,500

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost
1. Organise Autumn research cruises of the DFO vessel "W.E. Ricker" and complete laboratory analysis ashore	4	7	$963,200
2. Analyse results from cruise, collate with results from other DFO-funded surveys, and relate results to Columbia River salmon issues identified in the 2000 BiOP2.	4	7	$712,000

Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

FY 2004	FY 2005	FY 2006	FY 2007
$418,800	$418,800	$418,800	$418,800

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget

Objective	Task	Duration in FYs	Estimated 2003 cost	Subcontractor

Outyear objectives-based budget

Objective	Starting FY	Ending FY	Estimated cost

Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget

Item	Note	FY 2003 cost
Personnel	FTE: 5.1	$142,000
Fringe	Overtime while at sea	$10,000
Supplies	Chemicals for proximate analyses & energy content; Reagents for DNA analysis; Trawl Repairs; print	$25,800
Travel		$6,000
Indirect	Calculated on costs exclusive of salaries and ship time	$4,800
Subcontractor	Contract for Cs133 & Hg measurements	$16,000
Subcontractor	otolith thermal mark ID analysis	$2,800
Subcontractor	Salmon gut analysis	$1,500
Subcontractor	Shipboard operation of CTD	$2,400
Subcontractor	CTD data processing (post cruise)	$500
Subcontractor	Seawater nutrient analysis (NO3, SiO4)	$1,000
Subcontractor	Laser ablation ICP-MS measurements of Sr/Ca in chinook otoliths (U. Vic)	$18,000
Subcontractor	Assessment of life history type, measurements of distance to ocean entry point on chinook otoliths (	$8,000
Other	Ship Time-- 28 days @ $6,430/day	$180,000
		$418,800

Total estimated budget

Total FY 2003 cost	$418,800
Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds	$0
Total FY 2003 budget request	$418,800
FY 2003 forecast from 2002	$0
% change from forecast	0.0%

Cost sharing

Organization	Item or service provided	Amount	Cash or in-kind
DFO	Professional time by senior DFO staff to project (Welch 0.6 PY; Senior Biologist 0.9 PY; Statistician 0.8 PY)	$238,000	in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Preliminary Review (ISRP 2002-2)

Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate

Date:
Mar 1, 2002

Comment:

This proposal requests funding from BPA for an additional coastwide survey (October) of juvenile salmonids and oceanographic conditions along the continental shelf to complement summer surveys conducted by the Science Branch, Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (CDFO). The proposal includes an extensive and informative summary of recent findings based on similar surveys conducted since 1998 by CDFO (some previous funding apparently provided by BPA but not reviewed by ISRP). Based on these surveys, the proponents indicated that salmon from the Columbia River tend to migrate northward along the continental shelf, that growth of salmon (in particular chinook and coho salmon) and marine environmental conditions are not equal along the shelf, and that certain stocks of salmon have a propensity to rear in specific areas of the coast. These investigators' hypothesize that the productivity of some Columbia River salmon stocks is more dependent upon where they rear in the ocean than due to their freshwater or estuary conditions.

The proposal requests ongoing (5 years) support for 28 days of ship-time for an October survey and sample processing. The proposal refers to an end of winter survey but its never clear whether that survey is funded or requested (it is not considered further in this proposal). The survey is intended to map ocean conditions determining the growth and survival of Pacific salmon along the West Coast of North America from the British Columbia-Washington border to South East Alaska, and to identify which stocks of Columbia River salmon forage in these areas. The stated objectives were (Section 9f, page 29):

identify the extent of the region of poor growth and survival,
measure the growth and feeding conditions of the salmon within these areas,
identify the physical and biological changes in the ocean that lead to reduced ocean survival through changes in growth, and
identify the identity of the fish occurring in this region of poor growth using DNA.

The ISRP agrees that useful information about Columbia River salmonids would be derived from joint support of these surveys and agree with the authors' summary comments about their past surveys. "Our results to date demonstrate that the ocean habitat of salmon, and the response of salmon to that habitat, is neither homogeneous nor constant." (page 25, Current limitations) However, much of the proposal is not so carefully worded and is more narrowly focused on the 1998 results as opposed to the latter three years of data. We disagree with the inference that the west coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI) is an inherently "poor" area of ocean production (see objectives stated above). We are also concerned that concluding that specific salmon stocks rear in specified areas of the ocean. Extensive past data from coded-wire tagged salmon indicate very wide distributions of salmon populations ... but we do acknowledge that these recoveries are based on the locations of fisheries and generally for older aged fish.

We also have significant concern for statements concerning the value of restoration efforts in freshwater habitats (3rd para., page 25).

"Whatever the specific causes of the reduced productivity, the decreases in marine survival over time for many stocks appear to be much greater than the changes taking place in freshwater survival. This suggests that it may not be possible to manipulate the freshwater environment for affected stocks sufficiently to compensate for what is occurring in the ocean."

The ISRP agrees fully with the value of measuring the survival of salmonids in freshwater and marine environments, but the inference based on the last sentence is not helpful to this Region. For example:

i) If ocean conditions are poor, then it is likely that agency rebuilding goals may not be met regardless of efforts in freshwater; but it is also likely that improved freshwater conditions can protect diversity within populations and increase production during those poor marine survival periods. During those periods, only freshwater and fisheries can be managed to preserve future production. ii) Conversely, if ocean conditions are very good, then production requires sustained production from freshwater spawning and rearing habitats.

The Basin no longer debates the needed integration of freshwater and marine conditions for salmonid recovery and clearly recognizes the value of studies in the marine environment (as in recent BiOps).

Specific comments on Proposal:

Protein electrophoresis and DNA analysis ... these seem to be duplicate tasks. The proposal suggests that this provides for "finer level of resolution" but it may also result in conflicting results. What evidence is there to support this added cost? Further, the DNA sub-proposal may be important but it does not seem to be included in the proposal budget. Is this accounted for elsewhere?
Similarly, while we see the merit of testing for yearling chinook along the shelf, the task described on page 37 does not have any budget assigned to this task. Who is conducting this analysis and is there a cost to this proposal?
Oceanographic Analyses (page 38) refers to the development of a predictive model integrating oceanographic and atmospheric data, but where is this identified in the budget and who would conduct this study? Other investigators are proposing similar models, so the ISRP should evaluate the need for each.
It has been identified that other programs in Alaska and GLOBEC are also sampling juveniles along the continental shelf. How does this proposal link with those projects, and/or does it support the multi-agency/national effort already underway? What is the unique contribution of this proposal?
While the ISRP does not normally address budget items there are some issues that should be responded to in this case.

Personnel lists 5.1 FTE but time allocations and staff are not identified. Two of the investigators are post-doctoral fellows, has their support already been committed and will they be available through the duration of the project?
As noted above, some tasks are not specified in the budgeted but we note that stock identification and scale analysis are included in another proposal (#30007). Are these proposals actually independent since both were submitted by Dr. Welch?
Benefits and Indirect costs are not presented as usually done for U.S. agencies. Are these accepted cost estimates from the Canadian agency?
The utility of a BPA commitment of funds would be contingent on continued support through CDFO. Are these likely to continue and could a Letter of Support be provided before final commitment of funds?
The section on Cost Sharing indicates a significant allocation of senior staff time to this proposal. Since Dr. Welch is already the principle noted on the proposal, what other staff are participants? This is particularly relevant given the first bullet above.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
May 17, 2002

Comment:

Reviewers suggest that it may be more appropriate to review this proposal through the Systemwide Province review since it has systemwide implications (i.e., looking at fish from throughout the system). The issues to be reviewed are not necessarily affected by the plume/estuary. The project sponsor should resubmit this proposal through the Mainstem and Systemwide Province. NMFS has identified this project as a BiOp project.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-11)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Jun 7, 2002

Comment:

Fundable in part. Clarification of personnel and management issues are essential before supporting this project. This proposal requests funding from BPA for an October coastwide survey of juvenile salmonids and oceanographic conditions along the continental shelf to complement summer surveys conducted by the Science Branch, Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (CDFO). The proposal includes an extensive and informative summary of recent findings based on similar surveys conducted since 1998 by CDFO (some previous funding apparently provided by BPA but not reviewed by ISRP). Based on these surveys, the proponents indicated that salmon from the Columbia River tend to migrate northward along the continental shelf, that growth of salmon (in particular chinook and coho salmon) and marine environmental conditions are not equal along the shelf, and that certain stocks of salmon have a propensity to rear in specific areas of the coast. These investigators' hypothesize that the productivity of some Columbia River salmon stocks is more dependent upon where they rear in the ocean than due to their freshwater or estuary conditions.

The proposal requests ongoing (5 years) support for 28 days of ship-time for an October survey and sample processing. The survey is intended to map ocean conditions determining the growth and survival of Pacific salmon along the West Coast of North America from the British Columbia-Washington border to South East Alaska, and to identify which stocks of Columbia River salmon forage in these areas. The stated objectives were (Section 9f, page 29):

identify the extent of the region of poor growth and survival,
measure the growth and feeding conditions of the salmon within these areas,
identify the physical and biological changes in the ocean that lead to reduced ocean survival through changes in growth, and
identify the identity of the fish occurring in this region of poor growth using DNA.

While the response was adequate, it generates significant concerns about what portion of the researchers' time the Council would be supporting. The proposal is for an October cruise along the Pacific west coast but that cruise is only one of four such cruises each year. The basis of the labor costs continues to be unclear ... how many months are associated with the October cruise, at least two of the positions noted are not staffed, and who else is contributing funding for these PDFs and graduate students? While the ISRP is supportive of this research we must also be aware that funding in this province will be extremely competitive and involves several large projects. Consequently, we are inclined to recommend provision of operating expenses for the October cruise and not personnel costs unless these can be more accurately described and the costs are fairly accounted for and distributed over other sponsors also (i.e., who supports 3 of the 4 annual cruises?). Further, there is now an additional concern regarding the PI. Given his statement in project #30007, if that project was supported the PI expected to take a 3-year leave to focus on that project. What would be the consequence of that action and would this project (#30010) continue? In the response to project #30007, the PI indicates that his other programs should be able to proceed without him but this leaves a level of uncertainty that would not be treated lightly in any other proposal reviews.

REVIEW:
NMFS Review

Recommendation:

Date:
Jul 19, 2002

Comment:

Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Benefits are indirect. Will provide information of growth and potentially survival benefits in changing coastal conditions to particular stocks of CR basin salmon that rear and utilize ocean habitats off the coast of British Columbia

Comments
This proposal more suited for the System-wide program; not part of the CR estuary province. Focus is not for the CR estuary, but rather along the coastal shelf of Canada and SE Alaska

Already ESA Req? No

Biop? Yes

REVIEW:
BPA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
A w/conditions

Date:
Jul 23, 2002

Comment:

The date time series proposed in this project addresses critical uncertainties including delayed and differential, population-specific mortality. There may be opportunities to reduce the cost; needs to be coordinated with projects 1998-014-00, 30002, 30001, and 30007.

REVIEW:
NWPPC Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Review in MS/SW

Date:
Oct 30, 2002

Comment:

Columbia Estuary Issue 1: ESA Research Projects, Survival and Growth of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Plume (Project 199801400); Holistic Habitat Opportunities and Food-Web Linkages of Juvenile Salmon (Project 30001); Optimization of FCRPS Impacts on Juvenile Salmonids (Project 30002); Acoustic Tracking Array for Studying Ocean Survival and Movements of Columbia River Salmon (Project 30007); Canada-USA Shelf Salmon Survival Study (Project 30010)

Council Recommendation: These five proposals are all research proposals involving study of the estuary habitat, the Columbia River plume and the ocean habitats that Columbia River salmon traverse during their migration. The Council is recommending two of these proposals for funding in this provincial review, that two of the proposals be moved to the Mainstem/Systemwide review for consideration, and that one proposal not be funded at this time. Of the five research projects, only 199801400 is an ongoing effort. It has proposed a rather substantial expansion of its plume study. It received a High Priority rating from CBFWA and the ISRP gave it a fundable recommendation, noting that the project sponsors felt that tasks 4 and 5 could be deferred for 1-2 years if budget constraints affected funding. NOAA Fisheries supported this NOAA Fisheries sponsored research project. They identified the project addressing numerous RPAs, but most significantly RPAs 158 and 162. Bonneville supported the project, but noted that it should coordinate with the other four proposed research projects. Bonneville's comments on the other four proposals are similar to their comments on 199801400 and will only be addressed here.

The Council agrees with the ISRP, BPA and NOAA Fisheries that the project provides an important research effort, which could probe how the hydrosystem and its operation impacts the estuary and near-shore ocean and plume environment. The Council also supports the expansion of objectives 1,2 and 3 of the project believing that these expanded objects will address ESA concerns in a fashion that outweighs the Council's lower priority for expanded research projects. However, the Council agrees with the ISRP and the project sponsors that Objectives 4 and 5 could be deferred. The Council does not recommend funding those two objectives at this time. Funds for the base of this project and for the expansion of the ongoing objects would come from the base allocation for the provinces.

Project 30001 received a High Priority rating from CBFWA and a fundable recommendation from the ISRP. NOAA Fisheries supported the project, again unsurprising, noting that the project addressed RPAs 158 and 162. The Council supports funding the project as another important research opportunity to address ESA concerns that would outweigh the Council's lower priority on new research projects.

Funds for the new Project 30001 would come from the unallocated placeholder since funding this project would exceed the Council's recommended budget for these provinces. Though given a High Priority designation from CBFWA and supported by the ISRP and NOAA Fisheries, the Council does not recommend funding project 30002 at this time. The Council's reasoning is based upon the ISRP comments on this project and upon budgetary constraints. ISRP stated that "since we see nothing fundamentally wrong with this proposal's presentation, we recommend funding. However, we also believe that this proposal is a couple of years ahead of its useful time and that it could be deferred if funding limitations required." [Emphasis added.] The Council believes that other projects that implement ESA actions and provide results in the time period of the current FCRPS Biological Opinion during this tight budget situation should outweigh implementation of this research proposal. Project 30002 could be better sequenced at a later time to take advantage of the information gained from the expansion of Project 199801400.

The Council finds that the other proposals, 30010 and 30007, should be moved to the Mainstem/Systemwide review for consideration. Project 30010 is clearly an ocean research proposal and does not fit within the geographic scope of the Lower Columbia and Estuary Provincial review. It is more appropriately considered in the Mainstem/Systemwide review along with other ocean research projects.

Project 30007 also involves ocean research, but has research elements for the plume and near shelf that could be considered under the Lower Columbia and Estuary review. Although given a Do Not Fund recommendation by CBFWA, the ISRP rated this project as fundable, but recommended funding at a reduced level from the proposal. Both NOAA Fisheries and Bonneville suggested moving the project to the Mainstem/Systemwide review, BPA noting that the project could coordinate with a similar NOAA Fisheries proposal on acoustic tracking. The Council agrees with these comments and would suggest reviewing the project in the Mainstem/Systemwide process.

REVIEW:
ISRP Final Review (ISRP 2002-14)

Recommendation:
Fund

Date:
Nov 5, 2002

Comment:

identify the extent of the region of poor growth and survival,
measure the growth and feeding conditions of the salmon within these areas,
identify the physical and biological changes in the ocean that lead to reduced ocean survival through changes in growth, and
identify the identity of the fish occurring in this region of poor growth using DNA.

CBFWA Estuary Review Comments:

NOTE: The ISRP reviews from the Estuary Provincial review for proposals 30007 and 30010 should be considered in any Council decision on funding of these proposals through the Mainstem and Systemwide project selection process.